[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2304-2310]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT IN PERIL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Green of Wisconsin). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge at this time my 
good friend and colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) who will join 
me and other Members, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ben 
Gilman) in a bipartisan discussion concerning the Northern Ireland 
peace agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, the peace process in Northern Ireland is in serious 
trouble. The Good Friday agreement we cautiously celebrated last spring 
is now under attack from within. Ulster Party leader David Trimble, who 
signed the agreement just nine months ago, is now balking and trying to 
reopen, renegotiate and re-interpret the terms of that hard-fought 
agreement. Over the past few months we have seen deadlines pass, deals 
reneged upon and a return to the ugly politics of exclusion.
  Let me remind those who support the status quo that the people in 
Ireland, north and south, voted decisively for change in the 
referendums last May. History will not be kind to those who fail to 
deliver.
  The next couple of weeks are critical. On Monday the Northern Ireland 
Assembly will meet to formally approve the creation of the 10-member 
executive and cross-border bodies. Over the next two weeks the assembly 
will make preparations for the transfer of powers from the Northern 
Ireland office on March 10.
  David Trimble wishes to lay claim to the title of first Minister of 
Northern Ireland. If he is ever to fulfill the tremendous 
responsibilities of serving as the first minister for both communities 
in Northern Ireland, he needs to move forward to implement the 
agreement that he is a party to and to appoint ministers to the 
executive. If he fails to do so, the two governments party to the 
agreement, namely Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Great Britain 
should reject the Trimble veto, take responsibility into their own 
hands and implement the agreement. They must support those who are 
working for peace, who wish to govern and serve in a new Northern 
Ireland. They should implement the agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, why should the people of the United States care? Well, 
because first of all there are millions and millions of Americans of 
Irish descent who reside in the United States, some of whom have paid 
very close attention to this, others who have not but yet understand 
what all Americans understand, and that is that Northern Ireland must 
move forward into a pluralistic, democratically-elected government that 
makes it possible for everyone to live out their lives, and practice 
their religion, and practice their own philosophy, and raise their 
family and raise their children in a spirit of equality and under a 
government that allows for individual freedoms and beliefs.
  One of the issues that has really hung this process up is something 
referred to as decommissioning. Decommissioning is the term that is 
used by the political parties of the north that in effect would disarm 
all of the combatants in this process, and I stress the words all of 
the combatants. As you probably know, there has been for the last 30 
years at least a period of strife, civil strife, violence, and it has 
been a very difficult time. Decommissioning would require under the 
agreement that all parties to the agreement, all political parties to 
the agreement, would use their good offices and their political capital 
to remove all of the guns and all the bullets from Northern Ireland. 
The agreement provided two years for this to take place and urged that 
all parties work toward that end, and at the end of the two-year period 
ideally all the weapons would be removed.
  Mr. Trimble has seized upon this issue and has, I think, really 
backed himself into a corner, because what he is saying now is that in 
order for him to implement the agreement, the IRA and the political 
leadership of Sinn Fein must deliver decommissioning prior to the 
implementation of the government, which is in direct contradiction to 
the agreement. The agreement says we all work together toward the end 
of violence and decommissioning, the end of arms, in a two-year period.
  Meanwhile we have deadlines that have to be met in order to put this 
government together, and if Mr. Trimble would stick to the agreement, 
progress would be being made now, and in fact one of the things that 
has to occur along the way is to eliminate the root causes for 
violence. And if those root causes are not eliminated, then regardless 
of whether the weapons disappear now or later, if the root causes are 
still there, the violence will return.
  So the agreement was hard-fought, every ``I'' was dotted and ``T'' 
was crossed with everyone watching, and words do matter over there. So 
the agreement needs to be implemented.
  I will take another moment and focus on another very important 
element in this agreement, and then I will yield to my friend from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  The Good Friday agreement calls for a new beginning to policing in 
Northern Ireland and contains a clear and unmistakable mandate for a 
new approach in this area, one capable of attracting and maintaining 
support from the community as a whole. In doing so it acknowledges the 
major defects in the current policing arrangement and the vital need 
for change.

[[Page 2305]]



                              {time}  1715

  At this critical juncture in the peace process, there is an enormous 
responsibility on Members of the Patten Commission. It is essential 
that they submit the kind of innovative proposals which the situation 
demands. It is no exaggeration to say that many in the Nationalist 
community will judge the value of the agreement by what the Commission 
delivers on policing. The terms of reference given to the Patten 
Commission, which are detailed in the Good Friday Agreement, are 
comprehensive and far-reaching. I propose today to include them in the 
record of the House.
  They require that the Commission deal with key issues, such as the 
composition, future police structure, and the whole culture and 
character of the force. The objective is to provide a police service 
with which both communities can identify. That is definitely not the 
case at present.
  The overriding problem is that the Nationalist community does not see 
the RUC, the Royal Ulster constabulary, as their police force. This is 
hardly surprising, given that 93 percent of the force is drawn from the 
Unionists, as opposed to the Nationalist community, and for much of its 
history the force operated as an arm, often an oppressive arm, of the 
Stormont Unionist administration.
  People in Nationalist areas recall in the not too distant past the 
use of lethal force by police, the use of plastic bullets, the use of 
physical abuse and torture in interrogation centers. They want to know 
that these features of policing are gone, and gone forever.
  In Northern Ireland, policing has been a major source of division, 
pushing the two communities farther and farther apart. In these 
circumstances, the demand for change is not about getting more 
Catholics into the RUC, it is about completely overhauling how policing 
operates in Northern Ireland. It is about creating a new police service 
with which the Nationalist community can fully identify.
  The situation cannot be resolved by tinkering with the problem or 
merely changing the name or the uniforms of the force, however 
necessary those changes may be. It requires a fundamental reappraisal 
of policing structures.
  The Good Friday Agreement identifies the objective, a police service 
enjoying the support of both communities. The Patten Commission must 
work back from that objective. It is its task to devise the kind of 
policing service which meets that standard. The status quo cannot be 
the point of departure.
  The new agreement must include fundamental changes in the 
composition, structure, culture and character of the police. The 
Commission's guidelines stress the need for the police to become 
accountable to the community that they serve. This means real power 
over policing at the regional and local level, with input into 
recruitment and direction of the force.
  The issue is not about adjusting simply the sectarian imbalance 
within the RUC. It is about creating a police service which 
Nationalists see as their own. They have never had that.
  It is no exaggeration to say that getting the policing issue right 
will have a major bearing on the ultimate success of the agreement. It 
is vital, therefore, that the Patten Commission's recommendations be 
acted upon without delay.
  We have seen too many examples of the so-called Securicrats, those 
shadowy bureaucrats who operate behind the scenes and appear to pay 
little attention to the political leaders, slowing down reforms to fit 
some alternative agenda. This must not be allowed to happen with 
policing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, 
who has shown great leadership on this issue, Mr. Neal.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. Speaker, there is high significance to this issue as we confront 
it here again on the House floor in the sense that in terms of 
international relations, this issue was inspired by Members of the 
House. It was the constant vigilance of the Members of the House of 
Representatives many years ago that played an enormous role in bringing 
this question to the surface and allowing members of the international 
community to pass some judgment.
  I want to thank Mr. Walsh. Time and again, like many Members of the 
Republican Party, he and others have been of great assistance on this 
question over a long period of time.
  As one who has been involved in the issue of Ireland for the better 
part of two decades, in fairness it should be acknowledged this 
afternoon how far we have come. But the truth is, as we have continued 
to role the boulder back up the hill time and again in the face of 
obstacles, some minor and some major, it has been the vigilance of this 
Congress that has ensured that all voices have rightly been heard.
  But let me, if I can, speak for a few moments about the Good Friday 
Agreement and the issue of decommissioning, as it is commonly known.
  The Good Friday Agreement states that all participants reaffirm their 
commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organizations 
and to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two 
years following the endorsement of referendums in the north and the 
south of Ireland.
  What is significant about this occasion, I believe, is that nowhere 
in the Good Friday Agreement is that issue compromised. It is pointed 
out time and again in a prescribed timetable that the people in the 
Republic of Ireland and the north of Ireland simultaneously voted for 
and endorsed.
  So what brings us to this point on the House floor? We are here 
because, once again, the Nationalist community, the Social Democratic 
and Labor party, led by John Hume, and the Sinn Fein political party, 
led by its president, Gerry Adams, have met all of the agreements that 
were reached on Good Friday under the substantial and able leadership 
of former Senator and our friend George Mitchell.
  And what has been their reward as they have gotten to the goal line? 
As they have gotten to the goal line, the response has been to move the 
goal posts back. Sinn Fein and SDLP both have stated emphatically that 
there are no preconditions that have been offered nor none that were 
accepted on the issue of decommissioning.
  But what do we have as a response from David Trimble and the Ulster 
Unionist party? They have sought to rewrite and to renegotiate the 
agreement on the matter of decommissioning.
  What is to suggest to the Nationalist community that if they want to 
subscribe to this precondition, that another precondition might not be 
offered in the near future, as it has always been done in the far and 
recent past?
  David Trimble in this instance, who, by the way, has won a Nobel 
Peace Prize, and I held great hopes for just a few weeks ago, has 
attempted to review the agreement that the people on the island of 
Ireland have voted for. He and some of his allies have deliberately 
delivered a crisis in the peace process by refusing to cooperate in the 
establishment of the new political institutions in the north of Ireland 
that, once again, the people in those six counties have voted for.
  They have repeatedly missed deadlines, and they have used 
decommissioning as an excuse to try to review the whole topic. What is 
sorely needed here is the leadership of the First Minister in Waiting 
to accede to the views of the electorate and to all of the political 
parties by Monday of next week, or February 15th.
  David Trimble and the Unionist party should not be allowed to park, 
to rewrite, or to renegotiate this agreement that was approved by the 
vast majority. Ten months after the agreement and nine months after the 
historic North-South referendums, the Assembly, the Executive and the 
North-South Council have still not been established. The refusal to 
establish these new institutions is in fundamental conflict with the 
letter of the Good Friday Agreement. It is undemocratic and a denial of 
the rights and wishes of a majority of the people who

[[Page 2306]]

voted for that agreement on May 22, 1998.
  We cannot diminish on this occasion or on this floor how significant 
this achievement has been. To think that all of the political parties, 
with the exception of some fringe elements, have come to the bargaining 
table and hammered out an agreement with the endorsement of Bill 
Clinton and Tony Blair, who both have done a great job, now to discover 
as the deadline for the North-South bodies approach that the would-be 
First Minister has decided to erect a new barrier to the accomplishment 
of our overall goal, and that is to have a role for Dublin in the day-
to-day affairs in the north of Ireland.
  It was just a few weeks ago that we saw the process stumble and we 
saw Prime Minister Blair intercede to help pick it up. In this 
instance, we hope once again that he would be willing to do precisely 
that.
  We should not underestimate how far this has come. We should time and 
again remind ourselves that we are now far up the hill as to where we 
once were. But it needs an extra nudge, and the nudge would be, I 
believe, to encourage Prime Minister Blair, and if it is the consensus 
of the political parties in the North, Bill Clinton, to once again 
intercede.
  But if we are to find ourselves each and every step along the way in 
this process of having a referendum which parties agree to and the 
parties all endorse, and then to say at the end of the day that is not 
entirely what was meant, we have to go back and revisit all of these 
issues that have intervened in recent time, then the agreement will 
collapse of its own weight, and none of us here who have been party to 
this solution want to see that happen.
  It is time for the development of these bodies, fully in compliance 
and in agreement with the wishes of the people in the North.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished Chairman of the Committee 
on International Relations, a real leader on this issue of peace and 
justice in Ireland, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise today on this very 
important issue as the new 106th Congress is taking time to address an 
ongoing issue of important foreign policy concern to our own Nation. 
The question of the difficult struggle for lasting peace and justice in 
the north of Ireland is one of concern to millions of Americans, as 
well as peace-loving people throughout the world.
  I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for 
arranging this special order, enabling us to discuss the status of the 
Ireland peace process. We welcome his remarks. I want to commend to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) for his supporting remarks and 
for his ongoing concern for peace in Ireland.
  Last year, as we know, was an historic one in Irish history. The good 
Friday accord was signed in April of 1998. The Irish people, both North 
and South, overwhelmingly endorsed that peace accord in public 
referendum. The people in the North then elected as part of the accord 
a new Northern Ireland assembly, an assembly to govern much of their 
own internal affairs.
  Sadly, as so often has been the case over the many years, and as my 
colleagues have just recited, the issue of arms decommissioning is 
still a major obstacle to further progress in the effort to bring 
lasting peace and real concrete change in the north of Ireland.
  These are goals we and most of the people on that island accept and 
want desperately. What is sadly lacking is the political will and 
leadership on the ground in the North. The arms issue is once again 
being used as the old Unionist veto, which blocks progress and blocks 
full implementation of the Good Friday peace accord.
  While it is notable that some people have won Nobel Peace Prizes for 
their leadership up to and signing the Good Friday accord, the real 
prize should come when the terms of the accord are fully adhered to and 
agreed upon as negotiated by all the parties.

                              {time}  1730

  In particular, the decommissioning issue is being used to block 
creation of a Northern Ireland cabinet level executive intended to help 
govern the north, as well as to help implement the new North-South 
bodies under the Good Friday Accord.
  The new cabinet executive must include Sinn Fein who won that 
legitimate right through the ballot box and a Democratic process to 
participate and to govern the north, as well as to be able to sit on 
the new North-South cross border bodies to govern the new Ireland.
  Like it or not, the Unionists must acknowledge that Sinn Fein has a 
legitimate Democratic mandate which, under the terms of the accord, 
entitles him to two ministerial posts on the new executive cabinet.
  The Good Friday Accord never mandated that the issue of IRA 
decommissioning would be a precondition to Sinn Fein's entry into 
government and the new institutions it established. It provides only 
for ``best efforts'' and the ``hopeful completion of the arms 
decommissioning process'' by the year 2000.
  The entire and complex Good Friday Accord and peace process will work 
only if everyone keeps their word and does not seek to renege on those 
portions of the agreement that they now profess to dislike. That is 
just how it is, and there can be no unilateral renegotiations, period.
  Yet, sadly, the issue is back to being used as a red herring to 
rewrite and to undo the Good Friday Accord and thwart the will of the 
Irish people who voted in massive numbers for the accord and for 
peaceful political change.
  It is time to get on with it and put an end to the Unionist veto 
which, for far too long, has been used to maintain the unsatisfactory 
status quo which is the north of Ireland today. We all know far too 
well how political vacuums in the past have been filled in Northern 
Ireland. No one wants a return to violence on all sides.
  Change must come on the ground, and the nationalist community must be 
treated with equality. They must be given their rightful voice in the 
future of the new north. Many in the nationalist community have chosen 
Sinn Fein to represent them in a new government, and no one has a right 
to undo that election.
  We also need to see new and acceptable community policing in the 
north, and equal opportunity, and a shared economic future. I am 
pleased to report today that our House Committee on International 
Relations will be holding hearings on April 22nd on policing in the 
north. We will be taking testimony from the north and from leading 
international human rights groups on the RUC question and the 
compelling need for new and acceptable policing, which is both 
responsive and accountable as envisioned by the Good Friday Accord. I 
am convinced that many constructive ideas for meaningful peace reform 
will emerge from our efforts.
  It is important that we all work together to bring about concrete and 
meaningful change, and bring about reform in the north so that one day 
soon, the future of Ireland and its warm and generous people will be 
theirs and theirs alone to make. It is time to get on with it, to end 
the foot-dragging, and to implement the will of the good and generous 
Irish people.
  I thank the gentleman for arranging this Special Order, and I thank 
him for yielding time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful 
comments and his leadership, as always, and I welcome the prospect of 
hearings in the Committee on International Relations on policing in 
Northern Ireland. It is a welcome addition to this overall equation, 
and I am sure it will be very, very helpful to all of us who are 
interested in this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time to my distinguished friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman) who has been a good leader on this issue and a 
faithful friend as well.

[[Page 2307]]

  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. MCGovern), who has had a long 
interest in the issues and affairs of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), and my dear friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) for their long years of 
leadership and advocacy for a fair, just and lasting peace in Northern 
Ireland.
  Like so many of my colleagues, I have relied on their wisdom and 
their insights in understanding the complex issues confronting this 
country as it moves into a new era of peace. I want to thank them again 
for the opportunity this afternoon for Members to come together and 
discuss the status of the peace process in Northern Ireland. I would 
also like to acknowledge and express my appreciation to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman) for all of his efforts in bringing about a 
peaceful settlement to the troubles in Ireland.
  Mr. Speaker, like the people of Northern Ireland, the Republic of 
Ireland, and England, the world was deeply moved and experienced a 
universal feeling of hope when all sectors of the Irish conflict signed 
the Good Friday Agreement last year and put in motion a process to 
bring lasting peace to Northern Ireland.
  All of us watched the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland vote 
overwhelmingly in support of the peace agreement, and we watched with 
great concern as violent parties attempted to destroy or undermine the 
agreement with acts of violence. But the heart and the soul and the 
spirit of the Irish people held true to the calling of peace and they 
rejected these violent provocations.
  The peace process has now reached yet another important crossroads. 
For over the next days and weeks, we will actually witness the transfer 
of power to the people of Northern Ireland, all the people of Northern 
Ireland. And we will see the various parties and sectors form a new 
executive, receive posts and ministries in that executive power, and 
have the new assembly ratify the North-South Agreement. In March, we 
will witness the formal transfer of power to this newly established 
executive.
  But there are some who state that the establishment of these new 
political institutions cannot and should not take place without the 
disarmament of paramilitary groups, most notably the decommissioning of 
the Irish Republican Army. But Mr. Speaker, the Good Friday Agreement, 
as has already been mentioned, requires no such precondition for the 
initiation of these new political bodies and the transfer of power. 
Indeed, establishing these new institutions and empowering the various 
parties and sectors of Northern Ireland will contribute greatly to 
building the climate of confidence and trust so necessary for the 
successful disarmament of paramilitary groups.
  Another key for successful disarmament will be what happens this 
summer when the proposals are reforming the police and completing the 
demilitarization of troops that will be presented. The reorganization 
of the police so that it is both responsible and responsive to all the 
communities of Northern Ireland is a critical item of the Good Friday 
Agreement. So is the withdrawal and the demilitarization of British 
troops on Irish soil a key element to a lasting peace and the rejection 
of armed conflict in the future.
  According to the framers of the agreement and the British government, 
the IRA needs to lay down about 1,500 arms or weapons by May 2000. Mr. 
Speaker, I have been very actively involved in the peace accords that 
ended the Civil War in El Salvador and that required the guerrilla 
forces in that country to give up literally tens of thousands of 
weapons. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, it only needs a matter of days to 
disarm 1,500 weapons if, and I emphasize if, the political and social 
institutions called for in the Good Friday Agreement have been 
established and are allowing all the people of Northern Ireland to 
participate fully for the first time in determining the future destiny 
of the country.
  Mr. Speaker, it is easy to overlook the tremendous progress that the 
peace process has brought to Northern Ireland. The British government, 
to their great credit, is ahead of schedule in the release of political 
prisoners. Families are being reunited. It is safer for people to walk 
home on the streets of Belfast and Ulster, and business and local 
commerce are expanding, and communities are coming together across 
sectarian lines, many for the first time, to plan a common destiny.
  Those of us in the United States and the international community must 
continue to support the peace process, and we must salute the people of 
Northern Ireland for remaining firm in their commitment to creating a 
lasting peace. But we also must, as my colleagues have already said 
here today, put pressure on those who would seek to undermine or 
rewrite or amend the process which has already brought us and moved us 
so far along this goal toward peace.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak, if I 
could for just a few moments again, about that policing issue. It was 
touched upon by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) earlier and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), but it is a crucial issue in terms of 
developing some faith in the institutions of governance in the north of 
the nationalist community that they fundamentally see a change in the 
identity of the police force. They cannot be seen as occupiers in a 
land that people see as their own. There have to be changes in the 
uniform, the name of the force, the emblems and the flag of the new 
force that will eventually command respect in both communities. We seek 
not the triumph of one community over the other as much as an agreed 
upon Northern Ireland.
  What we ask for is that North-South policing cooperation reinforce 
community confidence, and that a permanent international team be sent 
to the north to monitor the implementation of the agreements and the 
reforms as proposed. This opportunity must be emphasized in terms of 
the overall agreements in the north. If we are to have a professional 
police force, it must be one that is acceptable to both sections of the 
community and indeed, to both traditions. And while the Good Friday 
Agreement calls for a new beginning to policing, it has been slow to 
come about, and we are anxious to see the Patten Commission deliver on 
the agreement of policing and to see the composition of the police 
force of the URC in the north be dramatically changed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Newark, New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne), an individual who again has been a great friend on this issue.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my support to the continuation of 
the peace process in the north of Ireland. As we all know, the Good 
Friday Accords were promulgated nearly a year ago this April, with the 
best intent in mind, to end the authoritarian rule and domination of 
the Protestant party over the minority Catholics. It gave Catholics a 
real voice for once by ending 3 decades of conflict in the north of 
Ireland.
  Last marching season, last July 4th weekend I had the opportunity to 
travel again on my several trips to the north of Ireland, and I was 
there during that march when the Orange Order came into Drumcree, and 
the standoff was there. That was a tragic week. Following the standoff 
in Drumcree, 3 little boys were fire-bombed to death. Very sad and 
brutal.
  People started to think that perhaps enough is enough, to continue to 
celebrate the victory of William of Orange, in which Irish land was 
seized and confiscated, is really an insult to the people of Ireland 
and Catholics everywhere. Sadly, this parade glorifies a part of 
history and is really provocative in nature. So we felt that with the 
Good Friday Accords that this would be behind us. So one can imagine 
the excitement when President Clinton,

[[Page 2308]]

along with those of us here, went to celebrate the Good Friday Accords.
  I believed that the political prisoner release of paramilitary groups 
on both sides was certainly an issue that was a tough issue. I know 
that perhaps Tony Blair is receiving pressure to overturn this rule. I 
think this would set a bad precedent for all involved if this was 
overturned.
  In the same light, I know that the decommissioning issue was one of 
the last issues discussed before all parties made the last push towards 
peace. I think we know that disarming the paramilitaries was going to 
be very difficult, and we know it is a tough, sticky issue in most 
negotiations, even with the Palestine and Israel negotiations. The 
tough issues are put last, what should happen to the Holy City. So we 
are at the tough times.
  But let me say that the peace agreement does not explicitly require a 
start on disarmament, but it seems like politics is dictating this. I 
would hope that we could work out a solution. We have gone too far, we 
have suffered too long. We really believe that peace in the north of 
Ireland is irreversible, but we do need cooperation from all parties.
  I would also like to conclude by adding an article that was in 
today's Washington Post by a Mary McGrory who had an article called the 
Art of Understanding, and it talked about a dinner that was held Sunday 
evening at the Irish Embassy, but it was a little bit different. She 
said the number of blacks and whites were equally divided, and the new 
mayor of the city was there, and the chairman of the Republican 
National Committee was also there. They talked about issues of 
commonality, and the thing that was interesting about this is that the 
Anacostia area of Washington is an area where Frederick Douglas lived.

                              {time}  1745

  He moved into the area, although blacks were restricted, and he even 
had an integrated marriage. He moved there, anyway.
  But there was an Irish patriarch named Daniel O'Connell who Frederick 
Douglass admired. Frederick Douglass heard him speak in 1845, when 
Frederick Douglass went to Dublin. The two men often spoke in public. 
Douglass and O'Connell often complimented each other. This article is 
extremely interesting.
  Please allow me to include in the Record this article from today's 
Washington Post, which talked about two great fighters for freedom in 
the 1800's, Frederick Douglass, the great African American spokesperson 
of the time, and Daniel O'Connell, an Irish patriot.
  The article referred to is as follows:

               (From the Washington Post, Feb. 11, 1999)

                        The Art of Understanding

                           (By Mary McGrory)

       It wasn't your usual diplomatic do last Sunday night at the 
     Irish Embassy. The guests, for one thing, were about equally 
     divided between blacks and whites, which doesn't happen much 
     unless African dignitaries are visiting. For another, the 
     city's new mayor, Tony Williams, was there, and so was the 
     chairman of the Republican National Committee, Jim Nicholson.
       The company had been invited by the Irish ambassador, Sean 
     O'Huiginn, and his artist wife, Bernadette, to stop by for 
     supper on their way to Union Station, where an exhibit of art 
     in Anacostia, the capital's stepchild ward, was opening. The 
     mayor was there to encourage the ``Hope in Our City'' 
     initiative as just the kind of rational enterprise he hopes 
     will occur in his administration. And Nicholson was on hand 
     as ``spouse of'' his artist wife, Suzanne. Her warm, 
     evocative painting of three abandoned buildings on Martin 
     Luther King Avenue so charmed the mayor that he put it on his 
     Christmas card.
       Suzanne Nicholson's husband's party may have trouble with 
     African American voters, but she is a heroine in Anacostia. 
     Although it is most known for its high unemployment and low 
     rate of trash collection, she finds it a place of beauty and 
     inspiration. She visits often, and patronizes the Imani Cafe, 
     across the street from the scene of her painting.
       The Irish ambassador told the gathering about an old tie 
     between Anacostia's most famous inhabitant Frederick Douglass 
     and the great Irish patriot, Daniel O'Connell. The two mighty 
     champions of the oppressed were friends.
       Douglass admired O'Connell's fiery speeches on liberty. He 
     realized his dream of a meeting in 1845, when he went to 
     Dublin. The two spoke often in public, Douglass of a race in 
     chains, O'Connell about a nation deprived of all rights and 
     liberties.
       Bernadette O'Huiginn created a sculpture to commemorate the 
     tie between green and black. She found a Celtic cross in the 
     gift shop of the National Cathedral, chains to drape over it 
     at Hechinger's; hunted down a slave's iron collar and bought 
     a shotput ball that she ``aged'' for the exhibit.
       At one side of the drawing room, which throbbed with the 
     good cheer of people of the same town in search of the same 
     thing, Chairman Nicholson talked more about politics than the 
     arts. Guests sought his views on censure--he's against--and 
     the luck of Clinton. ``Can you believe,'' he asked with hands 
     spread wide, ``that the pope would come and the king would 
     die all in the month he needed them the most?'' He meant, of 
     course, that the pope's visit to St. Louis gave him a chance 
     to place a filial hand under the pope's elbow and King 
     Hussein's death gave him a chance to comfort a queen and be 
     pictured with three ex-presidents.
       Impeachment has only widened the gulf between Republicans 
     and African Americans, who see Clinton as a fellow victim of 
     persecution by the authorities.
       Across the room, guests crowded around the mayor to wish 
     him well or to give him advice. Williams has just weathered 
     his first big flap--brought on by a career umbrage-taker in 
     the city's employ who does not know the meaning of the word 
     ``niggardly.''
       After they had supped on curried lamb and Irish potatoes, 
     the guests went to their cars and headed for Union Station to 
     see a high display of photographs and paintings that were all 
     by or about the people of Anacostia. They were pictured as 
     prophets and angels or just infinitely appealing human 
     beings. It is a vivid, intimate view of a neighborhood that 
     never had much going for it, but that now has the attention 
     of its fellow citizens. The Washington Arts Group, which 
     arranged the show, says it seeks ``reconciliation through 
     art.'' It seemed quite a plausible goal Sunday night.
  Once again, I would just like to commend the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), 
and all those involved in wishing the peace process in Northern Ireland 
to continue. We need to keep the pressure on. It always gets tough when 
we are right near the end, but the end of the tunnel is in sight. We 
hope that the politics does not destroy this, whether it is in England, 
whether it is in Ireland, whether it is in the north of Ireland.
  Mr. NEAL. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Newark, New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Baltimore (Mr. Ben 
Cardin), a good friend to the Irish peace process, as well.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) for yielding to me. I thank him for his 
leadership on this issue, and thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of representing the Third Congressional 
District of Maryland. It is known as the ethnic district. We have many 
ethnic communities that are located in my congressional district. We 
have a proud Irish tradition in Baltimore and in Maryland.
  The people of my district strongly support the peace process in 
Northern Ireland. I take this time to emphasize the importance of us 
staying the course for peace. I also wish to pay tribute to a young 
Belfast man named Terry Enright, who was slain a little over a year ago 
in front of a nightclub where he worked by those who would have hoped 
his murder would rekindle the smouldering ashes of sectarian strife and 
the mindless killings in Northern Ireland.
  One year later, though talks on the implementation of the historic 
peace agreements have stalled, the streets of Belfast, Antrim, and 
Omaugh and all of Northern Ireland are relatively calm and quiet. Terry 
Enright's murder could not eclipse his life and its message.
  You see, Terry was a young youth counselor, a lover of the outdoors, 
sports, and children, who realized that bringing these things together 
was part of the solution to the troubles. Terry Enright worked with 
children from all walks of life, Protestants, Catholics, Unionists, 
Loyalists alike.
  I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because his murder did not prompt the 
resurgence of violence that his killers had hoped. Rather, it prompted 
a collective recoiling in horror from people all over the island of 
Ireland. Following a deep and profound sadness, there was a 
recommitment from all sides to keep

[[Page 2309]]

their eyes on the goal line. That is what Terry would have coached.
  Seamus Heaney, the Nobel Prize-winning poet from Northern Ireland, 
tells the story of his aunt, who planted a chestnut in a jam jar the 
year of his birth. When it began to sprout, she broke the jar and 
planted it under a hedge in the front of his house. As the chestnut 
sapling grew, Heaney came to identify his own life with that of the 
chestnut tree.
  Eventually the family moved away, and the new family that moved in 
cut down the tree. Reflecting on that tree as an adult, Heaney began to 
think of the space where it had been, or what would have been.
  He writes, ``The new place was all idea, if you like; it was 
generated out of my experience of the old place but it was not a 
topographical location. It was, and remains, an imagined realm, even if 
it can be located at an earthly spot, a placeless heaven rather than a 
heavenly place.''
  Mr. Speaker, let the words of Seamus Heaney and the life of Terry 
Enright be a reminder to us all, especially Irish leaders, as they 
steer through the particularly rough shoals of implementing the peace 
talks. We ask that these men and women be remembered; that we 
understand and reflect on their lives.
  Terry's life has been reflected on by his parents and by his two sad 
and mystified daughters, who hope all remember Terry in life, just as 
Heaney remembered his chestnut tree in life. But let us hope that also 
the imagined realm of peace and equality in Northern Ireland generates 
``an earthly spot of placeless heaven'' for all those in Northern 
Ireland.
  Through the work of President Clinton, Senator George Mitchell, David 
Trimble, John Hume, and the citizens of Northern Ireland, we can almost 
glimpse it.
  Though the negotiations in Stormont may be stalled, they should not 
stall the momentum of hope. Let these leaders hear and speak the words 
of present compromise instead of stumbling over the words of past 
conceits. Terry's father reminds us it was a similar impasse in the 
peace talks before the Good Friday agreement that created the political 
vacuum in which his son was murdered.
  Terry Enright's mother, Mary, when asked how she can cope with the 
rage and frustration over her 28-year-old son's tragic killing, 
explains: ``But if you drive a car looking through the rearview mirror, 
you'll end up crashing.''
  Mr. Speaker, the imagined realm of Heaney's fallen chestnut tree and 
the reality of Terry Enright's work in life ought to direct these 
leaders in this perilous moment of peace to look up and to look ahead. 
I know I speak for all Members of this body in urging us to remember 
the goal of peace in Northern Ireland. It is within our grasp. We must 
stay the course. I urge us to continue to do so.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) for calling attention to what happened on the night of 
January 14, 1998, when Terry Enright, a 28-year-old nationalist, was 
killed by the Loyalist volunteer forces outside of a Belfast pub. He 
was the 3,233rd person killed in the 30 years of sectarian conflict in 
the north of Ireland. His wife, Deidre, is a niece of Gerry Adams.
  His funeral was the largest burial service since Bobby Sands in 1981, 
attracting thousands of people from both the Nationalist and the 
Unionist communities. They came in such numbers because Terry Enright 
was a popular social worker and an athlete who worked with 
disadvantaged youths. He was a role model to both Protestant and 
Catholic youngsters who participated in his Outward Bound program and 
admired his message of nonviolence.
  Many people said they would remember the funeral, where two bright 
rainbows appeared when the casket was brought to the church and when it 
was eventually taken away to the cemetery. On the 1-year anniversary of 
his death, let us remember the life and spirit of Terry Enright, and 
let us pay tribute to a brave young man who rose above the conflict and 
dreamed of an Ireland free of violence and sectarian hate.
  This life highlights how difficult this task has been, but at the 
same time, the acknowledgment demonstrates how far we have all come in 
this process. We should note the work of not only the friends of 
Ireland here in this Congress, with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) and many others on the Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Issues, but 
also the role that President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, Mo Mowlam 
and Bertie Ahern have played, as well as John Hume and Gerry Adams.
  We should not be discouraged at this time. We can only hope and pray 
that the best instincts of all the parties will prevail in the next few 
weeks as we enter this critical phase once again of Irish history. We 
hope and conclude in the near future that all the people on the island 
of Ireland will live in an agreed-upon Ireland. I thank my friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jim Walsh) for organizing this special 
order.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record this article from the Online 
Edition of the Irish News.
  The article referred to is as follows:

            (From Irish News: Online Edition, Feb. 11, 1999)

                        Squaring the Arms Circle

       The future of Northern Ireland will be decided within 
     weeks. Next week the assembly will decide whether or not to 
     adopt proposals for a 10-member executive and cross-border 
     bodies.
       In the next week or two the executive will be established 
     in shadow form, ready to accept powers back from Westminster.
       The deadline for that is March 10--though Tony Blair and Mo 
     Mowlam have both said they are prepared to allow some 
     slippage.
       Progress depends on reconciling David Trimble's refusal to 
     sit alongside Sinn Fein ministers in the absence of concrete 
     decommissioning with Sinn Fein's refusal to link membership 
     of the executive with the hand-over of arms.
       Nobody knows how this particular circle will be squared. 
     One thing is certain, neither Mr. Trimble nor his Sinn Fein 
     counterpart Gerry Adams seems willing to give way first.
       The most likely formula revolves around the status of 
     ministers.
       It has been suggested that the appointment of ministers 
     with shadow powers would be a clear signal to republicans of 
     unionist bona fides. This in turn would give republicans 
     space for the beginning of actual decommissioning.
       There may be an element of wishful thinking here. But it is 
     difficult to see any other solution which would give both 
     sides the space they need.
       Mr. Trimble would be able to tell his electorate that 
     republicans would not bet a hand on the reins of power 
     without movement on weapons. Mr. Adams would be able to say 
     that Sinn Fein ministers had been appointed without 
     decommissioning being given in return.
       Both men should take encouragement from the real desire for 
     movement within the community they serve.
       That was well articulated yesterday by the G7 group which 
     represents business and the trades unions.
       Their interests are at one with the interests of the entire 
     community. They know all too well that political stability 
     will bring enormous economic rewards.
       Sir George Quigley put the issue succinctly when he said: 
     ``For everybody to wait for somebody else to move before 
     moving themselves is a sure recipe for permanent immobility.
       ``Northern Ireland has no future of any quality except as a 
     stable, inclusive, fair, prosperous and outward-looking 
     society.''
       That fact has not been lost on the prime minister. 
     Yesterday Downing Street let it be known that Tony Blair 
     intended to become ``much more fully engaged'' in the coming 
     weeks.
       Mr. Blair has played a crucial role in moving the process 
     forward. He has done so because he has earned the respect of 
     both traditions.
       He should know that the vast majority of people on this 
     island, as well as within Northern Ireland, will support 
     efforts to find a way around this problem which recognizes 
     the concerns of both sides and strives for an accommodation.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As always, I am 
inspired by the thoughts and words of my colleagues. Certainly nothing 
stirs the blood of an American more than the issues of war and peace 
and freedom and liberty versus subjugation of philosophy or religion or 
free speech.
  My colleagues who have spoken tonight not only have given their 
thoughts and words to this, but their time. Many, many of them have 
traveled back and forth over the Atlantic to lend whatever assistance 
we can to

[[Page 2310]]

this very critical process at a very critical time. I am inspired by 
their actions, and I am comforted by their actions, and I am comforted 
by the leadership that both parties have provided, that our president 
has provided. Progress would not have been made without that effort.
  I would also like to thank our dedicated staffs who have put so much 
time, of their time and energy into this, providing us with the 
background, making the phone calls, staying on top of the issue. It is 
not just out of the fear that they will not have their job, they are 
doing it because they believe in it. Their effort is appreciated.
  I would also again like to thank my colleagues. There were many who 
had planned to attend this evening's special order, but with the change 
in schedule they headed home, people like the gentlemen from New York, 
Mr. Peter King, Mr. Vito Fossella, and Mr. Jack Quinn.
  For the good of the order, I would like to make my colleagues aware, 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) knows that, that the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the new Speaker of the House, 
accompanied President Clinton on his first visit to Ireland back in 
1995 at the historic beginning of the American role in this peace 
process under President Clinton's leadership.
  This is a critical time. As has been mentioned, there are several 
critical dates coming up. We will be watching. The price of failure is 
great. The judgment of history if we fail will be cruel and harsh.
  With the receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. Trimble, along with 
Mr. Hume, was recognized. Their efforts were recognized, but the stakes 
were raised. Surely with the receipt of this prize comes a tremendous 
responsibility to fulfill the obligation of truly creating peace.
  If Mr. Trimble is to be a leader of all of the people of the north of 
Ireland, certainly he must address the hopes of the vast majority of 
those people who voted for the agreement, not his interpretation of the 
agreement.
  We have worked together well, Republicans and Democrats, House and 
Senate, President and Congress. We cannot stop now, we are so close to 
the end. I am reminded, after we had spent a good 5 or 6 days in 
Northern Ireland this summer with Speaker Gingrich, full of hope, we 
returned to the United States, only to be advised on landing that a 
bomb had exploded in Omaugh, killing little kids and pregnant women and 
old folks and people with hope and promise and belief that peace is at 
hand.
  Let us not let those lives go for naught. Let us continue this 
effort. Let us close the deal. Let us bring peace and justice to all of 
Northern Ireland.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to urge the participants 
in the Northern Ireland peace process to continue carrying out the 
agreement that was reached and ratified last year. I also want to thank 
my esteemed colleague and good friend, Richard Neal, for organizing 
this evening's special order.
  Mr. Speaker, many of the Members of Congress who, like myself, have 
been actively involved in Irish affairs were greatly pleased when 
negotiations last year were successful in producing the Good Friday 
agreement on the future of Northern Ireland, and when the people of 
Ireland subsequently voted to approve the agreement. This was a major 
step in resolving this unfortunate, bloody stalemate. I was honored to 
have been asked to be part of the official U.S. delegation visit to 
Ireland and Northern Ireland last September.
  No one anticipated that there would not be further setbacks and 
obstacles to peace as the process agreed to last year was implemented. 
The Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland, the conflicts during last 
summer's ``marching season,'' and the debate over the scheduled release 
of IRA prisoners, all threatened last year to derail the peace process 
that was set in place by the Good Friday peace pact. Now, the peace 
process has become stalled over disagreement over Sinn Fein's 
participation in the new executive assembly.
  I want to urge the signatories to the Belfast Agreement to abide by 
the clear terms of the agreement they signed. All of the signatories 
agreed that the terms that they agreed to were fair to all involved. 
Moreover, the voters overwhelmingly approved this process. Now is not 
the time for anyone to back out of their commitments or to renegotiate 
the parts they don't like. No, Mr. Speaker, the peace process has been 
clearly laid out and agreed to. The alternative is more violence and 
terror and stalemate. The people of Northern Ireland deserve peace. 
Enough blood has been shed. I urge the parties to the Belfast Agreement 
to carry out their obligations under that document and take the brave 
steps necessary to achieve a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

                          ____________________